The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

[Aexodus]

Well if hate speech was ‘inchoate’, it would be ‘in preparation to hate’ so to speak. Hatred itself should not be illegal, obviously.

[Kritias]

Well if hate speech was ‘inchoate’, it would be ‘in preparation to hate’ so to speak. Hatred itself should not be illegal, obviously.

Unfortunately, there's the case of the question posed in all law schools around the globe: do thoughts never actualize into action, and if so when is the proper time to intervene as a lawman? An example is when lawmen are taught philosophy and come into contact with Aristotle, where they are confronted with the idea that one can do something "too much". A man, for example can be brave but if he's too brave, then he's reckless. Equally true, a man may be too caring and be taken advantage by others, whereas he's in fault for not understanding the wickedness of others and acting to counter it.

In short, I don't really know whether I agree or disagree with your statement.

[Aexodus]

In short, I don't really know whether I agree or disagree with your statement.

The second one about hatred in of itself? I did a thread for that. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...ate-be-a-crime

I’m quite worried if you even have to think about that. Of course we should be allowed to hate.

[Kritias]

The second one about hatred in of itself? I did a thread for that. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...ate-be-a-crime

I’m quite worried if you even have to think about that. Of course we should be allowed to hate.

I think it depends. No one can of course forbid anyone from hating literally anyone else; that's not what I have reservations about. If that's what you're asking then no, it shouldn't be illegal obviously. I do have reservations if hate is based on a constant bombardment of misleading or half-true/half-lies information, generalizations from a handful of cases, rather than personal experience. In short if your experience is influenced and coerced through the sheer amount of bull coming our way every day.

I'll read your thread!

[Heathen Hammer]

I believe the debate on racism, white supremacy and other less sugar coated forms of the same thing has been had during 1945-1960s. So, if what you say is truthful, would it also fall to reason that a) we have a debate that establishes truth once and therefore b) every reiteration of the same debate is falsehood?

Philosophy aside, what truth does a sieg hailing pug offer you exactly? That nazis are somewhat fun people, maybe?

Again, if an idea is wrong, you are free to debate against it in good faith. If you are against a good faith debate, then you either suspect that idea you want banned is true, or you realize your own ideas are too weak and you want other ways for your ideas to triumph without getting tested in good faith debate. In both cases, you low-key admit that either ideas listed by you can be true, or that you think your ideas are actually worse then ideas you listed. Not an argument I'd be making if I were you.
I thought the idea behind UK police state prosecuting comedians was because someone would watch a video of a pug do a Roman Salute and then would become a dedicated National-Socialist, or whatever was going on in deranged dumb little minds of UK thought police officials. Clearly, if you need to ban comedy to preserve your ideology, then maybe your own ideology is the problem.

[Aexodus]

I do have reservations if hate is based on a constant bombardment of misleading or half-true/half-lies information, generalizations from a handful of cases, rather than personal experience. In short if your experience is influenced and coerced through the sheer amount of bull coming our way every day.

If that’s so, what would you have the government do about the lies and generalisations. And personal experience can be skewed one way or another, when it comes to forming an opinion on something it’s better to take yourself out of your personal experience.

Also, what do you think the definition of hate is?

Is it the visceral outpouring of loathing?

Is it Orwellian to redefine words?

What about redefining the definition of hate to include offensive speech such as this, which is regarded by some as “hate”. Or more generally some of the false accusations of “peddling hate”.

[Kritias]

If that’s so, what would you have the government do about the lies and generalisations. And personal experience can be skewed one way or another, when it comes to forming an opinion on something it’s better to take yourself out of your personal experience.

Also, what do you think the definition of hate is?

Is it the visceral outpouring of loathing?

Is it Orwellian to redefine words?

What about redefining the definition of hate to include offensive speech such as this, which is regarded by some as “hate”. Or more generally some of the false accusations of “peddling hate”.

There are libel laws when someone spreads lies about another person, Aexodus, so the legal system has already got to this issue. As they have done for the peddling of hate towards specific groups.

Yes, hate is the visceral outpouring of loathing - and hate can be motivation for crime and hateful speech is incitement for oneself and/or others to commit crimes. Do you deny that? So, when someone peddles hateful things on very particular groups of the population, then yes it is damnable. And yes, it is Orwellian to redefine words, as is to redefine the context of terms to skew it to something more tasteful.

Again, if an idea is wrong, you are free to debate against it in good faith. If you are against a good faith debate, then you either suspect that idea you want banned is true, or you realize your own ideas are too weak and you want other ways for your ideas to triumph without getting tested in good faith debate. In both cases, you low-key admit that either ideas listed by you can be true, or that you think your ideas are actually worse then ideas you listed. Not an argument I'd be making if I were you.
I thought the idea behind UK police state prosecuting comedians was because someone would watch a video of a pug do a Roman Salute and then would become a dedicated National-Socialist, or whatever was going on in deranged dumb little minds of UK thought police officials. Clearly, if you need to ban comedy to preserve your ideology, then maybe your own ideology is the problem.

First, just by saying the pug was taught to do the Roman salute on a video where the pug was clearly taught to raise its paw whenever Meecham said 'sieg heil' and shows the angle you bring to the argument. No, the pug didn't do the roman salute; the dog was doing the Nazi salute, as was the context of the video. Get your fact straight because you either don't know what you're talking about or you're not debating in good faith. Which is it?

About the free marketplace of ideas, once more: it doesn't work as you think it does.

a) This idea is only applicable in the United States of America. There's no other place in the world that legally accepts this idea. So, you wanting to bring it up for a debate in Meecham's case isn't applicable. This is just a legal peculiarity the US have, not the United Kingdom.
b) The free marketplace of ideas does not work between individuals in the United States, but only when the state prosecutes/persecutes an individuals for talking publicly on their ideas.
c) There's a huge precedent when the US disregarded the free marketplace of ideas; it is called the McCarthyism era. Do you claim then that that particular period was right or wrong according to you supporting the free marketplace of ideas?
d) The free marketplace of ideas requires the 'defeated' ideas to be withdrawn, giving space to better ideas to emerge. The argument behind it is that the competition of ideas will create better ideas. This competition cannot be accomplished if there's a "subsidy" of some particular ideas; when you keep rehashing the same ideas, the same arguments, then you don't allow the free marketplace of ideas to function as it should.

just like capitalism, when a business is bad and not producing good products, it should be left to die out; instead, what you're arguing for is the equivalent of a government subsitizing the business, propping it up. This action hurts the economy since the bad business keeps going without freeing that space for better, new businesses to emerge.

[Aexodus]

Yes, hate is the visceral outpouring of loathing - and hate can be motivation for crime and hateful speech is incitement for oneself and/or others to commit crimes.

Can you explain why hate speech is the same as incitement?

[Heathen Hammer]

First, just by saying the pug was taught to do the Roman salute on a video where the pug was clearly taught to raise its paw whenever Meecham said 'sieg heil' and shows the angle you bring to the argument. No, the pug didn't do the roman salute; the dog was doing the Nazi salute, as was the context of the video. Get your fact straight because you either don't know what you're talking about or you're not debating in good faith. Which is it?

About the free marketplace of ideas, once more: it doesn't work as you think it does.

a) This idea is only applicable in the United States of America. There's no other place in the world that legally accepts this idea. So, you wanting to bring it up for a debate in Meecham's case isn't applicable. This is just a legal peculiarity the US have, not the United Kingdom.
b) The free marketplace of ideas does not work between individuals in the United States, but only when the state prosecutes/persecutes an individuals for talking publicly on their ideas.
c) There's a huge precedent when the US disregarded the free marketplace of ideas; it is called the McCarthyism era. Do you claim then that that particular period was right or wrong according to you supporting the free marketplace of ideas?
d) The free marketplace of ideas requires the 'defeated' ideas to be withdrawn, giving space to better ideas to emerge. The argument behind it is that the competition of ideas will create better ideas. This competition cannot be accomplished if there's a "subsidy" of some particular ideas; when you keep rehashing the same ideas, the same arguments, then you don't allow the free marketplace of ideas to function as it should.

just like capitalism, when a business is bad and not producing good products, it should be left to die out; instead, what you're arguing for is the equivalent of a government subsitizing the business, propping it up. This action hurts the economy since the bad business keeps going without freeing that space for better, new businesses to emerge.

I think we all can agree that charges against Dankula were made up over ridiculous "crime" that would never be a crime in countries that respect their citizens and their rights. Within context of making pugs do gestures for purposes of comedy, it matters little whether it was doing a Roman salute, (aka "nazi" salute, I think you may expose lack of knowledge of these subjects, I suggest to look up the history of imagery that was used by NSDAP to avoid making such mistake sin the future) a muslims call for prayer or "dabbing". Sadly, UK has a problem with retreat of democracy and encroachment of authoritarianism, so we hear more and more of such cases.
As for the rest of your post, I don't think you understand how free market of ideas works. If idea has been disproven, then it can be easily defeated with same argument that disproved it. I don't see anything bad in applying this notion to corporations as well, just to prevent corporate entities from exerting political power over society. It may be a notion rather specific to United States, but isn't it all about desiring the best? Clearly, the way UK governed is more akin to oppressive regimes of the past century, then a modern democracy. It seems UK government isn't concerned over safety of its citizens, but mainly about preventing them from speaking out openly.

[Kritias]

Can you explain why hate speech is the same as incitement?

I said hate speech can be viewed as incitement to crime. It depends whether causality to an actual crime can be drawn. I think the issue we are having is that you do not trust the judiciary system as much as I do to do their work impartially.

I think we all can agree that charges against Dankula were made up over ridiculous "crime" that would never be a crime in countries that respect their citizens and their rights. Within context of making pugs do gestures for purposes of comedy, it matters little whether it was doing a Roman salute, (aka "nazi" salute, I think you may expose lack of knowledge of these subjects, I suggest to look up the history of imagery that was used by NSDAP to avoid making such mistake sin the future) a muslims call for prayer or "dabbing". Sadly, UK has a problem with retreat of democracy and encroachment of authoritarianism, so we hear more and more of such cases.
As for the rest of your post, I don't think you understand how free market of ideas works. If idea has been disproven, then it can be easily defeated with same argument that disproved it. I don't see anything bad in applying this notion to corporations as well, just to prevent corporate entities from exerting political power over society. It may be a notion rather specific to United States, but isn't it all about desiring the best? Clearly, the way UK governed is more akin to oppressive regimes of the past century, then a modern democracy. It seems UK government isn't concerned over safety of its citizens, but mainly about preventing them from speaking out openly.

The charges against Dankula were brought because the people who brought the case to the procurator fiscal were obviously offended by the video. The charges also gained in validity when the representative of the Jewish community in Scotland claimed that they got a hundred and sixty pages of abuse in a single day. These charges were brought because the state respect their citizens and their rights, all of them.

Is the context nazism? Was the salute used by the nazis? Then call it what it is. You saying it was the Roman salute, which is actually incorrect since we don't really know whether the Romans were saluting like that and this myth started by this painting, is trying to make it something it isn't. Next, you can tell me that the swastika is really sanskrit so it's okay to use it. Please!

Again, the free marketplace of ideas works because the competition of ideas disqualifies the defeated ideas post facto and allows room for better ideas to formulate and be discussed. In fact, truth cannot be reached if we are keep going in circles. You wanting to keep the defeated ideas in the game is actually hurting the free marketplace of ideas, skewing its function. Plainly put, this is just a vehicle some use to share their ideology whatever it might be - and I am curious. Why do you support this skewed version of the free marketplace of ideas?

Again, you return to calling the United Kingdom authoritarian. Again, look at the statistics I provided you - the United Kingdom scores as freer compared to most countries, including the United States. If the United Kingdom is sliding towards authoritarianism, and for a moment let's assume for the argument's shake that it does, does this mean that the United States is more authoritarian? If you say it is not, that's because the premise of your argument is wrong and you will have understood your error. But! If you call the statistics false again, I will remind you that I asked you to give me alternative statistics that show the US freer to the United Kingdom - something you still haven't given me. Why is that?

[Aexodus]

I said hate speech can be viewed as incitement to crime. It depends whether causality to an actual crime can be drawn. I think the issue we are having is that you do not trust the judiciary system as much as I do to do their work impartially.

If hate speech isn’t always incitement, then why make all hate speech illegal?

Why not... just stick with normal incitement laws, make some new anti-incitement laws even.

These charges were brought because the state respect their citizens and their rights, all of them.

So if Meecham’s free speech was on one hand, what right was on the other? The right not to be racially insulted? I don’t agree that that is a human right.

[Cope]

The charges against Dankula were brought because the people who brought the case to the procurator fiscal were obviously offended by the video. The charges also gained in validity when the representative of the Jewish community in Scotland claimed that they got a hundred and sixty pages of abuse in a single day. These charges were brought because the state respect their citizens and their rights, all of them.

No serious liberal society should insist that its citizens have a right not to be offended. End of discussion.

[Kritias]

If hate speech isn’t always incitement, then why make all hate speech illegal?

Why not... just stick with normal incitement laws, make some new anti-incitement laws even.

So if Meecham’s free speech was on one hand, what right was on the other? The right not to be racially insulted? I donÂ’t agree that that is a human right.

Mate, the link you just shared two replies ago stands to demonstrate than not all prejudiced, even hateful speech is judged by the legal system as "Hate Speech". When a communication causes a quantifiable reaction, in the form of abuse, threats etc then the law correctly intervenes. And as before, incitement laws are included in Hate Speech laws, however incitement allows the police to intervene before any action has taken place; it's intervention during the preparatory stage. Therefore, some legal bridge had to be created for incitement of hate crimes.

Firstly, the whole concept of racial insult is the problem. It stems from a racist understanding that there's a master race, and its deviations that aren't equal to it. And therefore as the master race is the image of perfection, the imperfection of the lesser races are fertile ground for insults. Ergo, racially insulting someone is promoting the same concept, regardless of intent. Also, despite your agreement with immunity from racial insults being a human right, the UN thinks so. Check article 1 & 2 of the UDoHR. I quote,

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Here you can find what applies in the United Kingdom. Therefore, since racial insults are based on the fact that some races are lesser than the one master race, insulting someone on the base of race is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So, on the one hand you have Meecham's right of free speech - on the other you have the Human Right to not be discriminated against due to race, sex, language, religion, politics etc.

@ Ep1c_Fa1l,

No serious liberal society should give in to the requests of some of its citizens to continue to peddle hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, misanthropic statements against other citizens because "it's funny".

[Cope]

@ Ep1c_Fa1l,

No serious liberal society should give in to the requests of some of its citizens to continue to peddle hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, misanthropic statements against other citizens because "it's funny".

Yes they should. I couldn't care less about your emotional appeals.

[Aexodus]

Mate, the link you just shared two replies ago stands to demonstrate than not all prejudiced, even hateful speech is judged by the legal system as "Hate Speech". When a communication causes a quantifiable reaction, in the form of abuse, threats etc then the law correctly intervenes. And as before, incitement laws are included in Hate Speech laws, however incitement allows the police to intervene before any action has taken place; it's intervention during the preparatory stage. Therefore, some legal bridge had to be created for incitement of hate crimes.

Firstly, the whole concept of racial insult is the problem. It stems from a racist understanding that there's a master race, and its deviations that aren't equal to it. And therefore as the master race is the image of perfection, the imperfection of the lesser races are fertile ground for insults. Ergo, racially insulting someone is promoting the same concept, regardless of intent. Also, despite your agreement with immunity from racial insults being a human right, the UN thinks so. Check article 1 & 2 of the UDoHR. I quote,

Here you can find what applies in the United Kingdom. Therefore, since racial insults are based on the fact that some races are lesser than the one master race, insulting someone on the base of race is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So, on the one hand you have Meecham's right of free speech - on the other you have the Human Right to not be discriminated against due to race, sex, language, religion, politics etc.

@ Ep1c_Fa1l,

No serious liberal society should give in to the requests of some of its citizens to continue to peddle hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, misanthropic statements against other citizens because "it's funny".

Oh you’re scraping the barrel now with these mental gymnastics Kritias,

Let’s look at UK hate-speech laws such as the public order act.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/97552/hate...re-the-uk-laws

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”.

Threatening and harassment I agree with, but outlawing abusive or insulting words that cause alarm or distress has nothing to do with incitement. Mark Meecham’s legal tripwire that was section 127 of the communications act which banned ‘grossly offensive’ speech has nothing to do with incitement.

When you say ‘when a communication causes a quantifiable reaction’ do you mean meecham’s joke? Any abuse toward for example the SCoJeC is jot his fault, and he is not legally culpable for that. If you want to hold him legally responsible for that I find that disturbing.

You do not have a human right against racial insults, no matter how much olympic level gymnastics you perform with the UN declaration of human rights. And that is the end of the matter. I have every right to insult epic, the sick piece white ing trash that he is ().

Your entire illiberal mindset towards freedom of speech is totally apart from the Liberal understanding of the concept.

[Kritias]

Oh you’re scraping the barrel now with these mental gymnastics Kritias,

Let’s look at UK hate-speech laws such as the public order act.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/97552/hate...re-the-uk-laws


Threatening and harassment I agree with, but outlawing abusive or insulting words that cause alarm or distress has nothing to do with incitement. Mark Meecham’s legal tripwire that was section 127 of the communications act which banned ‘grossly offensive’ speech has nothing to do with incitement.

When you say ‘when a communication causes a quantifiable reaction’ do you mean meecham’s joke? Any abuse toward for example the SCoJeC is jot his fault, and he is not legally culpable for that. If you want to hold him legally responsible for that I find that disturbing.

You do not have a human right against racial insults, no matter how much olympic level gymnastics you perform with the UN declaration of human rights. And that is the end of the matter. I have every right to insult epic, the sick piece white ing trash that he is ().

Your entire illiberal mindset towards freedom of speech is totally apart from the Liberal understanding of the concept.

What are you on about? Making a racial insult means there's de facto a differentiation between race x and race y, with a qualitative superiority/inferiority implied. The whole purpose of insulting a race is based on this differentiation. Do you claim it's not?!

[Cope]

You do not have a human right against racial insults, no matter how much olympic level gymnastics you perform with the UN declaration of human rights. And that is the end of the matter. I have every right to insult epic, the sick piece white ing trash that he is ().

Your entire illiberal mindset towards freedom of speech is totally apart from the Liberal understanding of the concept.

What disturbs me more than anything is naivety of it all. Empowering the state to police "offensive" language will inevitably backfire - if not on us, then on future generations. Secularists fought for centuries in Europe for the right to criticize and mock the sensibilities of the majority, yet now their political descendants on the left want to cede the right to determine acceptable expressions back to government.

[Kritias]

What disturbs me more than anything is naivety of it all. Empowering the state to police "offensive" language will inevitably backfire - if not on us, then on future generations. Secularists fought for centuries in Europe for the right to criticize and mock the sensibilities of the majority, yet now their political descendants on the left want to cede the right to determine acceptable expressions back to government.

Guys, hold on. At some point we must see this issue for what it is: the demand of some people who want to go about and drop mad bigoted bombs left and right, citing their freedom of expression to insult others. There's no reason for people loosing their mind over what everyone must have learnt by the time they left kindergarden: it's not okay to insult other people. Period.

[Cope]

Guys, hold on. At some point we must see this issue for what it is: the demand of some people who want to go about and drop mad bigoted bombs left and right, citing their freedom of expression to insult others. There's no reason for people loosing their mind over what everyone must have learnt by the time they left kindergarden: it's not okay to insult other people. Period.

Yes it is.

[Infidel144]

If I started telling people here they were losing their minds, would I get infracted for insulting others?